I actually agree with Sam and Ezra that Ron Paul is not more viable than Mike Huckabee, though I'm deeply skeptical about Huckabee's chances of winning Iowa, despite the support of the local home schooling associations and FairTax.org, on account of the complexity of the caucus system (more than 1,700 precincts) and Mitt Romney's committment to buying victory at all costs. That Huckabee is polling higher than Rudy Giuliani in Iowa should be no surprise to anyone who's watched Giuliani campaign in that state. But that doesn't mean that he has a shot at the nomination. And don't count Romney out yet. Romney is the John Kerry of this race, the underestimated, weak-looking, self-financing figure with no serious national polling support who nonetheless has a clear and time-tested strategy for victory. Giuliani may be riding high in national polls, but he is weak on the ground in the early states and is pursuing an unproven theory of how to win the nomination. If Romney can hang on and win Iowa, he'll get enough of a momentum boost that he'll likely win New Hampshire, as well. A Republican who wins both those states has little chance of losing his party's nomination, even with the new primary calendar. At best, Huckabee looks to be the John Edwards of the race, potentially coming in second in Iowa and dogging the nominee until South Carolina, which he could easily win (again, like Edwards), before dropping out in February due to a lack of money to take the campaign nationwide. And then, like Edwards was for Kerry, Huckabee will be a perfect vice presidential pick for whichever Republican has won the nomination.
--Garance Franke-Ruta
